Is the theory of evolution actually falsifiable?

[David M]

[FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Yet most experiments looking at multicellular organisms have so far failed to produce any information on such mutations.”[/FONT]

Except the examples of the beneficial humans mutations in humans that I linked to o course. Oh and all that antibiotic resistance that you have to deal with in your job.

And here's some for other species.

Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection

[FONT=&quot]I therefore conclude that I am not making wild statements without evidence.[/FONT].

Sorry to say this but you are. You are also ignoring your own evidence of deleterious mutations being removed from the gene pool due to miscarriage and their effects on reproductive success. While the majority of phenotypic mutations are deleterious the majority of phenotypic mutations are also removed from the gene pool because those affected do not reproduce.

You obviously missed reading Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304 and Perfeito, Lilia, Lisete Fernandes, Catarina Mota and Isabel Gordo. 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.

 

[evolved yet?]

I disagree. The difficulty is that a lot of deleterious mutations do not necessarily give rise to problems until after reproductive age. Thus, the deleterious mutation is passed on.

Not necessarily, if you are past reproductive age and you are parenting and you die then you will have an effect on your fitness by effecting your child's fitness.

 

[linwood]

Originally Posted by Christian Doc
“Yet most experiments looking at multicellular organisms have so far failed to produce any information on such mutations.”

I can`t believe you`re a doctor.

It`s like a bus driver who doesn`t believe in the combustion engine.

Unreal...

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Is the theory of evolution actually falsifiable?

The question is concerned with scientific evidence.

 

[Noaidi]

The question is concerned with scientific evidence.

And the answer has been given. If god can show himself and demonstrate that he personally created the myriad of species, then evolution would be falsified.

So far... jack diddly squat. Falsification is firmly within the court of your god (or a hitherto unknown explanation, but I'm sure you're not contemplating that).

 

[Biblestudent_007]

And the answer has been given. If god can show himself and demonstrate that he personally created the myriad of species, then evolution would be falsified.

So far... jack diddly squat. Falsification is firmly within the court of your god (or a hitherto unknown explanation, but I'm sure you're not contemplating that).

Whatever you say. .

I mentioned a scientific belief that God the Creator is the Author of Source of all biological life.

 

[LuisDantas]

A scientific belief would need evidence, and would need to be falsifiable. I just don't see how you can build such with the Creator God-hypothesis. Unless, I suppose, if God comes pay witness.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

A scientific belief would need evidence, and would need to be falsifiable. I just don't see how you can build such with the Creator God-hypothesis. Unless, I suppose, if God comes pay witness.

Because it makes perfect sense . .?

 

[tumbleweed41]

A scientific belief would need evidence, and would need to be falsifiable. I just don't see how you can build such with the Creator God-hypothesis. Unless, I suppose, if God comes pay witness.

Indeed. One can 'believe' God guided evolution or created the universe. But to claim that faith as scientific is to fail to understand science altogether.

 

[Alceste]

Because it makes perfect sense . .?

"Makes perfect sense"? Science requires more than a good think. "Making perfect sense", I'm afraid, doesn't cut it. If the empirical evidence we have so far accumulated had indicated God had something to do with the diversity of life on earth, THAT would be our current understanding. The very same experiments and observations that have verified our knowledge evolution is responsible would have falsified the theory a thousand times over if it were not true.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because it makes perfect sense . .?

It doesn't. Even if it did, it would still be only a belief, not at all a scientific belief.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

It doesn't. Even if it did, it would still be only a belief, not at all a scientific belief.

What? OEC belief.

 

[painted wolf]

Because it makes perfect sense . .?

perfect sense is more often than not, neither perfect nor sensible. It makes perfect sense that airplanes shouldn't be able to fly.

wa:do

 

[branson]

the appearence of modern man a mere 700,000 years after homo-erectus and some 200,000 years before neanderthal man is absolutely implausible. professor theodosius dobzhansky, writer of mankind evolving, was puzzled by the fact that this development took place during a period when the earth was going through an ice age, a most unpropitiuos time for evolutionary advance. his conclusion was, "modern man has many fossil collateral realitives but no progenitors; the derivation of homosapiens then becomes a puzzle." how then did modern man appear some 300,000 years ago instead of 2 or 3 million years in the future, following further evolutionary development. advanced australopithecus was found 2 million years ago and was considered to be the first truely man like ape, and it took another 1 million years for evolution to produce homo-erectus. it seems the most important evolutionary step should have taken longer than the rest, but the evidence shows it was shorter, 300,000 years shorter. if you follow the chain neanderthal should have come before cromagnon, but evidence proves otherwise.

 

[Alceste]

the appearence of modern man a mere 700,000 years after homo-erectus and some 200,000 years before neanderthal man is absolutely implausible. professor theodosius dobzhansky, writer of mankind evolving, was puzzled by the fact that this development took place during a period when the earth was going through an ice age, a most unpropitiuos time for evolutionary advance. his conclusion was, "modern man has many fossil collateral realitives but no progenitors; the derivation of homosapiens then becomes a puzzle." how then did modern man appear some 300,000 years ago instead of 2 or 3 million years in the future, following further evolutionary development. advanced australopithecus was found 2 million years ago and was considered to be the first truely man like ape, and it took another 1 million years for evolution to produce homo-erectus. it seems the most important evolutionary step should have taken longer than the rest, but the evidence shows it was shorter, 300,000 years shorter. if you follow the chain neanderthal should have come before cromagnon, but evidence proves otherwise.

That book was written in 1962. Do you think there have been any developments in the field of human evolution since then?

As far as I know, adverse conditions for survival (like the ice age) accelerate evolution, rather than inhibit it. This seems to be exactly what the theory would predict. Did he think otherwise?

 

[LuisDantas]

What? OEC belief.

Old Earth Creationism, I assume?

No, it doesn't make perfect sense. I might perhaps grant the point if anaencephaly were not a fact of life. Even then, one would need to choose a variety of that belief that respects the evidence for evolution.

 

[camanintx]

I still wait to see the article that says the majority of human mutations are neutral.

Genetics, Vol. 156, 297-304, September 2000, Copyright © 2000

Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans

Michael W. Nachmana and Susan L. Crowella
[SIZE=-1]a Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Corresponding author: Michael W. Nachman, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Biosciences West Bldg., University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721., [email protected] (E-mail) [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Communicating editor: A. G. C[SIZE=-1]LARK[/SIZE][/SIZE]

The average mutation rate was estimated to be

2.5 [FONT=ariel,helvetica]x[/FONT] 10-8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation.

If most of the 175 mutations in the average human genome were not neutral, we wouldn't be here.

 

[Autodidact]

"Makes perfect sense"? Science requires more than a good think. "Making perfect sense", I'm afraid, doesn't cut it. If the empirical evidence we have so far accumulated had indicated God had something to do with the diversity of life on earth, THAT would be our current understanding. The very same experiments and observations that have verified our knowledge evolution is responsible would have falsified the theory a thousand times over if it were not true.

These are not mutally exclusive. It's perfectly possible that God had everything to do with the diversity of life on earth, and that evolution is responsible. It would only mean that God created evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

And the answer has been given. If god can show himself and demonstrate that he personally created the myriad of species, then evolution would be falsified.

So far... jack diddly squat. Falsification is firmly within the court of your god (or a hitherto unknown explanation, but I'm sure you're not contemplating that).

Scientific evidence, by definition, can never cast any light on whether God did anything, only how.

 

[Autodidact]

Whatever you say. .

I mentioned a scientific belief that God the Creator is the Author of Source of all biological life.

That is an oxymoron. You may belief it, or disbelieve it, but neither view is scientific, because science is neutral on the question. Science simply is not about God, one way or the other. If you believe in God, any God, then science can only tell you HOW He created things, not whether.